Many pundits label last year as the “do nothing Congress.”   At the very end, the House and Senate did at least reach agreement on a two-year budget resolution and the FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), but a lot did not get done.  Here is a quick synopsis of the civil, commercial and national security space issues facing Congress in the second session of the 113th Congress as it returns to work this week.  The Senate meets tomorrow (Monday), and the House on Tuesday.

Third Party Liability for Commercial Launch Services.  Perhaps the first space-related issue they will tackle is extending third party liability indemnification for commercial launch services providers.  The House and Senate committees with jurisdiction — the House Science, Space and Technology (SS&T) Committee and the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee — agree that the FAA’s authority to indemnify commercial launch services companies for certain amounts of liability for third party claims in case of a launch failure should be extended again.  They disagree on the length of time for the extension.  Democrats on the House SS&T Committee want to limit the extension to one year so additional hearings can be held on the need for indemnification.   The Senate committee and House SS&T Republicans want three years.  Industry would prefer a longer extension, preferably making the authority permanent.

The House passed a one year extension (H.R. 3547) on December 2.  The Senate passed the House bill on December 12, but with an amendment extending it for three years.  That meant the bill had to go back to the House.  By then, however, the House had completed its legislative business for the year and the clock ran out.  The indemnification authority expired on December 31.  This is an important matter for U.S. launch services providers, however, and it would not be surprising to see an extension passed early this year as a stand-alone bill or as part of the anticipated Omnibus Appropriations Act.

FY2014 Appropriations.  Speaking of an Omnibus Appropriations Act, the mood in Washington is relatively upbeat that a bill to fund the government for the rest of FY2014 can pass before the existing Continuing Resolution (CR) expires on January 15.   The Bipartisan Budget Act (H. J. Res. 59) that cleared Congress in December set the limits of how much money Congress can appropriate for FY2014, but the actual task of appropriating those funds is the province of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.  They have been working diligently over the holidays crafting the 12 regular appropriations bills within the limits set by the budget act. 

Three of those 12 bills are of particular interest from a space policy standpoint: Defense (H.R.. 2387/S. 1429); Commerce-Justice-Science, which includes NASA and NOAA (H.R. 2787/S. 1329); and Transportation-HUD, which includes the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (H.R. 2610/S. 1243).  The expectation is that all 12 bills will be bundled together into a single Omnibus Appropriations bill for consideration by the House and Senate.

The total amount for defense and non-defense discretionary spending in FY2014 was set at $1.012 trillion, a figure half way between what the House and Senate each had earlier approved. That does not necessarily mean that the amount for any particular agency like DOD, NASA or NOAA will be half way between what the House and Senate Appropriations Committee separately approved, however.  (For NASA, the House Appropriations Committee approved $16.6 billion; the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $18.0 billion.) Also, the budget act did not replace the sequester, but did provide $63 billion in relief from the effects of the sequester split equally between defense and non-defense spending over two years.  All in all, the most dire predictions may be avoided and the budget outlook is brighter for federal departments and agencies than it was just a few weeks ago, but that hardly means a return to business-as-usual.  Budgets will continue to be constrained across the board and Tea Party Republicans appear determined to continue fighting for deeper cuts.

NASA Authorization.  DOD may have gotten its authorization bill (H.R. 3304) at the eleventh hour, but not NASA.   NASA’s most recent authorization act became law in 2010 and covered the years FY2011-2013.   The policy provisions remain law indefinitely, but the funding authorizations have expired.  The House SS&T committee and the Senate Commerce committee each worked on separate versions of a new NASA authorization bill last year, but they are quite different from each other and neither was actually reported from committee.  Each committee marked up its bill and they were “ordered reported,” but they still have not actually been reported.  (Typically, though not always, a bill is reported from committee before going to the floor of the House or Senate for consideration.)

The two major differences are funding levels and the status of the Obama Administration’s Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM).   The House bill (H.R. 2687) authorizes $16.9 billion, while the Senate bill (S. 1317) authorizes $18.1 billion.   The House bill prohibits spending any funds on ARM; the Senate bill is silent on ARM.  Both bills cleared their committees on party line votes, which is unusual for NASA, traditionally a bipartisan topic.

Intelligence Authorization.   Like NASA, the FY2014 authorization bill for the Intelligence Community did not clear Congress.   It was reported from the House and Senate Intelligence Committees (H.R. 3381/S. 1681) in November, but no further action was taken.  The Senate bill “encourages” the relevant government decision-makers to allow commercial satellite imagery providers to sell imagery with better resolution than what is allowed today (0.25 meter instead of 0.5 meter).  A statement in the unclassified report accompanying the House version of the bill (H. Rept. 113-277) says that it “continues to remove barriers to competition in space” and “advances technologies to enhance U.S. satellite capabilities,” but no further details are provided.

Termination Liability for Certain NASA Programs.   Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) introduced one part of the House committee’s NASA authorization bill as a separate bill in the hope of moving at least that part to the floor for a vote.   Referred to as the “termination liability” bill (H.R. 3625), one portion would change how NASA manages funding for termination liability for contracts for the Space Launch System (SLS), Orion spacecraft, International Space Station (ISS), and James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).  Perhaps more significantly, however, it would require congressional approval before any of those programs could be terminated, which some view as an encroachment on presidential prerogatives.  Congress has the power of the purse under the Constitution and strictly speaking can always countermand a presidential decision to either initiate or terminate a program that requires funding, but this bill explicitly requires congressional approval to terminater these particular programs.  The bill passed the House SS&T committee on a bipartisan vote in December after the top Democrat on the Space Subcommittee, Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD), convinced committee Republicans to add JWST to the list of protected programs.  Like the NASA authorization bill, H.R. 3625 was ordered reported, but not formally reported.  There is no Senate counterpart at this time.

Weather Forecasting Improvement Act.   The House SS&T Committee approved the Weather Forecasting Improvement Act (H.R. 2413) in December, but, like the others, has not been formally reported.   The bill does not focus on weather satellites, but does clarify that existing law does not prevent the government from buying commercial weather data or placing weather satellite sensors on co-hosted government or private sector satellites.   There is no Senate counterpart to this bill yet, either.

Other Legislation.   A number of other space-related bills were introduced last year, but whether they will see any action this year is somewhere between unlikely and possible.   They include a bill to study an alternative to RD-180 rocket engines (S. 1679), the Suborbital and Orbital Advancement and Regulatory Streamlining (SOARS) Act (H.R 3038), and a bill to rename NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center after Neil Armstrong (H.R. 667 passed the House, but there has been no action on its Senate counterpart, S. 1636). 

Nominations.  The Senate had a major show-down over nominations this year.   Democrats weary of Republicans preventing nominations from coming to the floor under existing Senate rules changed the rules so that only 51 votes instead of 60 votes are needed to bring a nomination to a vote.   Republicans are furious and responded by slowing action on the Senate floor during the chamber’s last days in 2013.   How it will affect Senate business in 2014 remains to be seen.

In the meantime, although Deborah Lee James was finally confirmed as Secretary of the Air Force on December 13, other important space-related nominations did not reach the floor during the first session.  Consequently they must be resubmitted by the President under Senate Rule XXXI paragraph 6.   They include:

• Kathy Sullivan to be Administrator of NOAA (she is currently acting in that role)
• Beth Robinson, currently NASA’s Chief Financial Officer, to be Under Secretary of Energy
• Dave Radzanowski to replace Robinson
• France Cordova to be Director of the National Science Foundation
• Jo Emily Handelsman to be Associate Director for Science at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
• Robert Simon to be Associate Director for Environment and Energy at OSTP

All of these nominations were returned to the President on January 3, 2014 (the end of the first session).

 

 

Two people viewed in the space policy community as epitomizing the differences between the Democratic and Republican views on NASA — Lori Garver and Scott Pace — were joined by Joel Achenbach and Mike Gold on today’s Diane Rehm show on National Public Radio to talk about the present and future of the space program.  Their views, along with listeners who called in with questions and Rehm herself, are quite interesting.

Garver was Deputy Administrator of NASA for four years of the Obama Administration under current NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden.  She left the agency in September 2013 to become General Manager of the Air Line Pilots Association and has not hesitated to remain in the forefront of the debate over the space program from her new position outside of government.   Pace was one of the top NASA officials under former Administrator Mike Griffin during the George W. Bush Administration and one of the architects of the Constellation program to return humans to the Moon by 2020, a program cancelled by Obama.   Both have held many positions in the space policy community over the decades.   Pace is currently Director of George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute.

Achenbach is a science reporter for the Washington Post who occasionally writes about NASA, most recently last week in an article entitled “To Go Boldly (and on budget).”   Gold is director of Washington operations and business growth for Bigelow Aerospace, which is building inflatable modules for use in space — one will be attached to the International Space Station next year as a test and Bigelow wants to put them on the lunar surface, too.

The Diane Rehm show is one of NPR’s most popular programs and is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year.  It is broadcast by WAMU here in Washington, DC.

Garver made clear that she opposes the Space Launch System and the Mars 2020 mission, which is essentially a repeat of the current Mars Curiosity mission, because she believes NASA should do new and innovative things, not build rockets based on 1970s technology or redo science missions. Pace stressed the value of international cooperation in space and argued that returning humans to the Moon is the type of mission that would attract international partners.

The program is worth a listen.  Here are some of the key discussion points.

• Rehm started by asking about Bolden’s recent statement (first reported here) that there would be no more flagship science missions, which Achenbach mentioned in his recent article where he added that the statement comes at a time “when the universe is screaming to be explored.”
    Rehm wanted to know if that means NASA needs more money.   
  • Garver disagreed that the problem is money, noting that NASA’s budget is greater than the sum of the budgets of all the other space agencies around the world, but it needs to focus on doing new and innovative things that return “real value here on Earth.”
  • Pace pointed out that the science community sets its own priorities through Decadal Surveys and “all the easy stuff has been done” so what needs to be done now is expensive.
  • Rehm asked whether the private sector can make up the difference, but Achenbach said he doubted the private sector would do the expensive science missions.
• Achenbach brought the discussion back to whether NASA has enough funding, saying that NASA is trying to do a lot of things on a flat budget including building the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion, commercial crew and space science.  He reminded Garver that she said in his recent article that SLS and Orion “created a crunch for NASA.”
  • Garver agreed that it’s all about trade-offs and NASA has “fed” a lot of constituencies over the decades and “Space isn’t partisan, it’s parochial.”  Those who develop big rockets want to keep developing big rockets and those who develop Mars missions want to continue developing Mars missions, she said, which is why NASA is doing the Mars 2020 mission rather than “driving in a new direction on Europa.”  [Europa is a moon of Jupiter with a liquid ocean under an icy crust and another top priority for the planetary science community.]
  • Pace said the question of priorities is why the nation needs a political discussion about what the country wants NASA to do.
• Rehm then asked if the country should return astronauts to the Moon
  • Pace said yes, not just because he has “a fondness for lunar science,” but because it would bring other countries along with us, including India “and I’ll also say it, China.”
  • Garver disagreed, saying that sending people to the Moon was a great goal in the 1960s, but we should do it again only when there’s a purpose to it, which is not the case now.
  • Achenbach asked Pace about the Obama decision to cancel Constellation.  Pace said he thought that was a bad decision, but stressed that it really is a two-part issue dealing with a program and a strategy.  Constellation was a particular program to implement the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) strategy and there could have been other programs to implement VSE, but Obama chose not only a different program, but a different strategy.
• Rehm later asked Pace to talk more about why international cooperation is important.
  • Pace:  “the rules in any new environment are made by the people who show up, not by the people who stay behind.”  It is important to the United States that space be “a stable, quiet and peaceful environment” because we rely on it.  “If we want to shape that environment” we have “to bring other countries along with us.”
• Discussion turned to human spaceflight versus science when Achenbach asked whether NASA’s focus should be science and quoted NASA science chief John Grunsfeld as saying that “science should be at the core of NASA” and, separately, that the Asteroid Redirect Mission is not a science mission. 
  • Garver said that focusing NASA on science would be difficult and unprecedented.  Human spaceflight has been driven by geopolitical goals, she said, and if science was the only goal, it would be a much smaller agency.  She noted that NASA’s science budget is $5 billion and that money should be spent on doing new things rather than being “shaped more by the status quo.”
  • In response to a listener’s question about robotic science missions and why they are “first on the chopping block,” Garver said there are science programs that need more attention, like heliophysics and Earth science, astrophysics missions like Kepler, and studying asteroids.
  • Achenbach noted that the planetary science program was cut “precipitously,” but added that Mars Curiosity ran almost $1 billion over budget and the James Webb Space Telescope  (in the astrophysics program) is “many billions over budget,” which also adds to budget stresses.
• Mike Gold joined the discussion by phone at this point for a few minutes.   Achenbach challenged Gold on a comment Robert Bigelow made recently that he wants the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to clarify what the private sector can or cannot do on the lunar surface in light of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty that prohibits countries owning the Moon (or other celestial bodies).
  • Gold said that it’s not specifically property rights, but that the private sector needs to be certain that it can operate on the Moon in a “safe and secure environment” where, “if we put the money into” building a base on the Moon, we can “operate on a non-interference and non-impingement basis … not that we own it,” but that “we wouldn’t face interference from other domestic entities.” 
  • Rehm exclaimed that she didn’t understand what Gold meant because the “language you’re using” sounds “proprietary” and one cannot own the Moon.   Gold began answering, but apparently the show ran out of time for that segment (music began playing) and he was not able to fully respond.  Rehm said it “sounds confusing to me,” and cut him off.  That was the extent of his participation in the program.
• Rehm later pressed Garver to identify two programs she would cut at NASA.
  • Garver:  I would cut programs “that are built on previous technology … like the huge rocket called the Space Launch System,” which was “dictated” by Congress because of the Orion spacecraft and “a holdover” from the Constellation program.  “It’s $3 billion a year.”    “Where is it going to go?  When will it even fly?”   
  • As for the second program, Garver said she would cut Mars 2020.  “I would not redo the Curiosity mission, I would invest that planetary science mission in doing something new like Europa or going to Mars in a more creative and innovative way where we can drive technology.”
• Achenbach then asked Pace about his position on SLS and Orion.
  • Pace said the advantage of Constellation was that it started with the smaller Ares I (needed for the Moon), with the larger Ares V (needed for the Mars mission) waiting until after commercial crew and cargo systems were developed.  “It was a very, very tightly integrated system that proceeded out in a logical fashion.”
  • Garver stressed again that SLS is being built on 1970s technology.  “Would you really go to Mars with technology that’s 50 years old?  That’s not what innovation and our space exploration program should be all about.”
• Rehm then asked about SpaceX.
  • Achenbach said Elon Musk is clear on what he wants to do — put thousands of people on Mars.  He added that SpaceX offices have pictures of Mars as “terraformed with water and plants” because they envision “human destiny is there.”  He also talked about SpaceX’s recent first launch to geostationary transfer orbit and SpaceX’s goals to capture part of the military space launch business.  “They’ve gone from being a startup to being a major player.”
  • Pace praised SpaceX for bringing commercial launches back to the United States.
  • Garver praised SpaceX for “doing things in new ways” and reducing the cost of launch and “that is what we should be doing in our space program, driving innovation and help this country again lead the world.”
• A listener called in and wanted to know why anyone would spend billions to send people to Mars when so much can be accomplished virtually today.
  • Garver said she believes “there is a human imperative to explore,” but agrees that a lot can be done virtually.   The billions of dollars that are spent on human spaceflight should be only for things that return value.    “I don’t think we should keep reliving the past” like Apollo.  It’s like nostalgia for old cars, which is “not what we need today.”

UPDATE 3, January 6, 2014:   SpaceX’s launch of Thaicom-6 is now scheduled for today, January 6, at 5:06 pm ET.  Orbital’s Orb-1 launch is now scheduled for Wednesday, January 8 at 1:32 pm ET and the associated pre-launch briefings are now on Tuesday (January 7) instead of today.  They still are at 2:00 pm ET (science) and 3:00 pm ET (mission status).  (India’s GSLV launch did go off on as planned on January 5.)

UPDATE 2, January 3, 2014:  The Orb-1 Antares/Cygnus mission to the ISS has been delayed from January 7 to January 8 or 9 because of weather.  Orbital Sciences Corp. says January 9 is the more likely day — launch window 1:10-1:15 pm ET. (But January 8 is a possibility — launch window 1:32-1:37 pm ET).

UPDATE, January 2, 2014:  Multiple sources report that the SpaceX launch scheduled for January 3 has been postponed to no-earlier-than January 6.

ORIGINAL STORY, January 1, 2014:  Happy New Year everyone!  Hopefully you’ve been having a nice few days of rest because, for space policy aficionados, the New Year gets off to a quick start with three interesting launches and Congress returning for the second session of the 113th Congress all within the first seven days — and that’s just the beginning.

During the Week

OK, so we’re defining “week” loosely this time to mean the first 10 days of 2014.  We don’t cover all the launches that take place each year since not all have space policy implications.   There are three coming up that are of special interest though:  SpaceX’s launch of Thaicom-6 on January 3, India’s return-to-flight of its Geosynchronous Space Launch Vehicle (GSLV) on January 5, and the rescheduled first operational launch of Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Antares/Cygnus system to resupply the International Space Station on January 7.

Admittedly the SpaceX launch is less exciting than its successful SES-8 launch last month, the company’s first launch to geostationary transfer orbit, but getting another rocket ready to repeat that success just a month later is a sign of maturity for the entrepreneurial launch firm so deserves a mention here.  It’s interesting to note that we couldn’t find anything about the upcoming launch on SpaceX’s website other than a mention on its 2013 launch manifest when the launch originally was scheduled to take place.   NASASpaceflight.com, however, reports the launch window on January 3 as 5:50 – 7:17 pm ET from Cape Canaveral, FL.

Two days later, on January 5, the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) will try to launch the return-to-flight-mission of its GSLV, the first flight since two failures in 2010.  This is India’s most capable launch vehicle, with a cryogenic upper stage.  The return-to-flight was supposed to occur last August, but was scrubbed an hour before launch because of a second stage leak.    The payload is India’s GSAT-14 communications satellite.

Two days after that, on January 7, Orbital Sciences Corporation is scheduled to launch its Antares rocket with the Cygnus cargo spacecraft to take supplies to the ISS.  The launch was delayed from last month because of a coolant loop problem on the ISS that necessitated a couple of spacewalks to resolve and NASA needed to focus on that instead.  This is Orbital’s first operational cargo launch to the ISS, designated Orb-1.

Separately, the United States is hosting an International Space Exploration Forum (ISEF) concomitantly with an International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) symposium and “Heads of Agencies” summit on Wednesday and Thursday in Washington, DC to discuss the future of space exploration and international cooperation in space.

Just outside Washington, the American Astronomical Society (AAS) is holding its annual winter meeting all week with major announcements of scientific discoveries from ground- and space-based instruments expected.

Meanwhile, the second session of the 113th Congress will commence. The Senate convenes on January 6 and the House on January 7.   They have a lot of work to do! 

Friday, January 3

• SpaceX launch of Thaicom-6 satellite, Cape Canaveral, FL, launch window 5:50 – 7:17 pm ET

Sunday, January 5

• ISRO’s return-to-flight of its GSLV, Sriharikota, India, 16:18 Indian Standard Time (5:48 am Eastern Standard Time)

Sunday-Thursday, Janary 5-9

• American Astronomical Society Winter Meeting, National Harbor, MD (outside Washington, DC)

Monday, January 6

• Senate begins the second session of the 113th Congress

Tuesday, January 7

• House begins the second session of the 113th Congress
• NASA International Space Station Advisory Committee, NASA HQ, Washington, DC, 1:00-2:00 pm ET
• First operational launch of Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Antares/Cygnus cargo resupply system for the ISS, Wallops Island, VA, launch window 1:55 – 2:00 pm ET

Wednesday-Thursday, January 8-9

• NASA Small Bodies Assessment Group (SBAG), Embassy Suites Washington D.C. Convention Center, 900 10th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Thursday, January 9

• International Space Exploration Forum (ministerial meeting), Washington, DC (limited attendance)
• AAS “State of the Universe” briefing, 2325 Rayburn House Office Building, 12:00-1:00 pm ET

Thursday-Friday, January 9-10

• International Academy of Astronautics Heads of Agencies Summit on Exploration, Ronald Reagan Building, Washington, DC
  • Thursday, IAA conference on planetary robotic and human spaceflight exploration
  • Friday, Heads of Agencies Summit